957 F. Supp. 2d 1252
W.D. Wash.2013Background
- Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and willful copyright infringement based on Defendants’ continued sale/distribution of three books after license termination. The court previously found Defendants liable for breach of contract and willful copyright infringement and entered a permanent injunction.
- Plaintiffs seek (1) contract damages for unpaid royalties (they presented detailed proof for Curtis and extrapolated amounts for Aldrich and Currier) and (2) statutory damages of $150,000 per work (maximum) for willful infringement.
- Defendants failed to timely comply with discovery orders: they withheld financial records (notably Ms. Thompson’s) and produced some bank records only after the discovery and dispositive-motions deadlines.
- Plaintiffs moved for additional sanctions (including adverse factual findings or default) based on discovery violations; the court previously ordered production and imposed sanctions but Defendants still delayed/withheld materials.
- The court granted summary judgment for Curtis’s contract-damages claim ($5,790.84) but denied summary judgment for Aldrich and Currier (insufficient direct evidence). The court denied summary judgment for maximum statutory damages because awarding the statutory maximum is a discretionary damages determination reserved for the factfinder (Feltner/Jury-right issues).
- The court found Defendants’ discovery noncompliance willful, awarded further monetary sanction practice (fee-shifting) and ordered production of Ms. Thompson’s financial records within 14 days with certifications; it authorized Plaintiffs to file renewed summary-judgment or sanctions motions and struck the trial date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contract damages for Curtis | Curtis proved underpayment of royalties $5,790.84 via tax records and royalty reports | No substantive opposition or contrary evidence | Granted: summary judgment for Curtis for $5,790.84 |
| Contract damages for Aldrich & Currier | Extrapolate likely similar underpayments ($5,377.91; $412.93) based on Curtis’s proof and alleged right to audit | No substantive opposition or evidence rebutting plaintiffs’ extrapolation | Denied: plaintiffs failed to meet initial summary-judgment burden; may refile if discovery supports claims |
| Statutory damages (maximum $150,000 per work) | Plaintiffs seek maximum statutory damages for willful infringement due to egregious conduct and discovery obstruction | Defendants offered no substantive opposition but argued generally about dispute-of-right-to-jury/ damages | Denied on summary judgment: amount-selection is discretionary and, under Feltner and Seventh Circuit precedent, a jury (factfinder) should determine enhanced statutory damages; not resolved as matter of law |
| Sanctions for discovery noncompliance | Seek adverse findings (piercing veil) or default; argue prejudice from lack of Ms. Thompson financials and late bank records | Assert offered records and on-site inspection opportunity; claimed production efforts | Granted in part / Denied in part: court found willful noncompliance, awarded attorney-fee discovery sanctions (fees to be quantified), ordered production/certification of Ms. Thompson records within 14 days, warned of adverse findings/default if noncompliant; trial date stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (view facts and draw inferences in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) (Seventh Amendment jury right applies to statutory damages in copyright actions)
- Peer Int’l Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc., 909 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990) (discretion governs statutory-damages awards; guidepost of what is just)
- BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005) (when damages request exceeds statutory minimum, defendant is entitled to a trial to determine amount)
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (factors for dismissal/default sanctions for discovery violations)
- Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (extreme sanctions like dismissal/default require willfulness, bad faith, or fault)